Sunday, May 31, 2015

Hey, it's all about priorities, right? And the media hacks over at the WaPo and the NYT can tell a "legitimate" scandal (the Dennis Whostert hanky-panky) from an illegitimate one (the dicey financial dealings of the Clinton Foundations).

Well, Candice, it isn't those proverbial "root causes" of poverty, unemployment and the like, the reasons "progressives" like Obama always point to as the impetus. What's driving them? Isn't it obvious? It's the siren call of jihad, which is particularly potent for certain idealistic youths who may be looking to channel their youthful idealism into a "worthy" cause. And, clearly, working for "social justice" and/or to put an end to global "climate change," causes which are amorphous and non-specific, don't captivate these youngsters in the way that running off to fight for the Caliphate does.

Friday, May 29, 2015

(FYI, here's my latest for The Megaphone.)I offer the following song selections (with apologies to Alan J. Lerner and Frederic Lowe, the chaps responsible for the originals) as an adjunct to or replacement for “Omar Khadr: Out of the Shadows,” the documentary being aired by our Khadr-besotted state broadcaster, the Ceeb.1) Papa Khadr sings:I'm getting sprung from jail this morning.Dingbat Chretien fell for my line.He pulled strings for me;Couldn't ignore me,So get me to jee-had on time!I'm gonna be there soon enough now.Hook up with my pal ObL.I said with great clarity,I'm running a "charity,"So get me to jee-had on time!If I am shooting, Watch out, kafirs.If I am preaching,Open up your ears!'Cuz I'm running off to Talibanstan.Help them undo the kafirs' crime.Soon I'll have virginsFor afterlife urgin'sSo get me to jee-had,Get me to jee-had,Allah, please get me to jee-had on time!2) Omar Khadr, chillin' down in Gitmo, sings:All I want is a room back there.Far away from the Gitmo air.Where I won't have a care.Oh, wouldn't it be heavenly?Lots of people who'll vouch for meLike, for instance, Dennis Edney.I'll live with him, yipee!Oh, wouldn't it be heavenly?Oh, so heavenly going right back homeTo my birth place.I'll be sure that I am good;I promise to know my place.Lawyer Edney will keep me straight.He knows Harper is full of hate.I'll sue, Boo hoo, Too late.Oh, wouldn't it be heavenly?Heavenly,Heavenly,Heavenly!3) Omar's supporters--a chorus/mob of self-righteous poseurs and bien pensants--sing:Just you wait, Stephen Harper,Just you wait.We will make you pay for your pernicious "hate."You must really loathe our OmieWho is our beloved homie--Ha ha, Stephen Harper, just you wait.Just you wait, Stephen Harper, till the vote,And we work to do you in--you will be smote.'Cuz with HDS* we're burningAnd your Tories we'll be spurning.Oho, Stephen Harper, just you wait... * Harper Derangement Syndrome4) A wistful Omar sings:They've grown accustomed to my face.The one when I was just a lad.They've grown accustomed to my eyes--So bright and yet so wise.My highs, my lows, my woes, my noseAre second nature to them now.Like voting for Justin Trudeau.They were so knee-jerk in their thinkingAnd in making me their pet.Have they all forgotten about medic Speer?You bet!They've grown accustomed, my huge throng,Think I can do no wrong,Accustomed to my face.

London (CNN)"I made my little steps ... I was trembling. Nervous. Scared..." Shams' breathless prose reads like a trashy romance novel, as she describes every tiny detail of her first meeting with her husband-to-be.

"After [a] few minutes, I flipped my Niqab. He looked at me, our eyes [caught] each other's. I had palpitation[s] faster than the speed of light.

"He smiled. And he asked a question that I shall never forget for the rest of my life. 'Can we get married today?'"

But this is no stereotypical fairy tale, and there's no "happily ever after" ending...

With his latest "It wuz a genocide!" article, former Big Time Official Jew Bernie Farber shows no sign of slowing down in his effort--one which is as nutty as it is deplorable--to smear Canada as a Nazi-esque entity, with Aboriginals entitled to the same victimhood status accorded to Jews who were exterminated during the Shoah.The question to ask here is cui bono--who benefits from such a designation?

I'm not sure if we should or shouldn't be impressed that his old horndog instincts didn't kick in right off the bat here.Update: It's hard to believe there could be someone who's even sleazier than BC, but there is--lecherous FIFA chief Septic Bladder.

The survey included detailed questions about their beliefs, giving them several leading statements concerning the strength of their feelings and how far they might go to defend their religion to assess.

The statements include: “Religious books are to be understood word for word”, “I believe my religion is the only correct one”, “God has a purpose for me” and “I would do what a grown up told me to do even if it seemed odd to me”.

Sounds to me like it could be a good way to get a sense of the intensity of these kids' believe so as to glean if, perhaps, they are heading into jihad territory and try to do something about it before it goes too far.Of course, that's not how it's being taken:

The survey has generated an outcry online, with many warning that it is “criminalizing Muslim children” with its “implicit assumptions”.

[Massoud] Shadjareh [head of the Islamic Human Rights Commission], however, expressed concerns that if children answered honestly to any of the questions they could be put on a watch list.

"They're obviously targeting Muslim children and trying to pick their brains and thoughts and effectively profile them,” he said.

"But at this young age we should be thinking of nurturing and developing our children, not compartmentalizing them.

"It's also clearly racist and Islamophobic and there would be uproar if they had mentioned 'Jew' or 'black' in the identity question.

"This reminds me of the prelude to the Nazi holocaust when Jews were profiled before they started putting Stars of David on them."

Yes, because everyone knows that, prior to depriving the Jews of all their rights and murdering them en masse, the Nazis first conducted a survey of their religious beliefs.What, you mean that you too missed that part of the history lesson? Our bad!

Don't tell me, lemme guess: He's just an unassuming former "boy soldier." Who wants a chance to live a normal life, just like you and me (if you and me were the spawn of Al Qaeda and were planning to sue the Canadian government for mucho dinero to compensate for time lost and pain incurred down in Gitmo).Count me as someone who wishes he and his whole pity party would go back into the shadows.

You'll notice that poor Hillary is reduced to peeping through the window of the all-white, all-male candidates' locker room. The problem with this image, of course, is that, all too conveniently, it omits two Republican candidates who don't fit the bill--Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Also, two of these "white" guys happen to be Hispanic.In other words, it is this very liberal magazine--and not the Republican party--that is practicing the art of exclusion (and lying via this inaccurate imagery).Pretty ironic, don't you think?Update: Leftists don't think Republicans like Cruz and Rubio are "real" Hispanics. They see them as "white" Latinos.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

There's this radical preacher over in Montreal who may or may not be persuading the young'uns to up and fight for ISIS. According to a report in the Toronto Star, a Montreal father is claiming that "Muslim preacher Adil Charkaoui, a former terror suspect, or those in his entourage at the Assahaba Islamic Community Centre" are directly responsible for his teenaged daughter's radicalization; she was just picked up at the Montreal airport prior to boarding a flight bound for jihad:

“They are responsible,” said Maha’s father, Jad Zibara. “They are manipulating young people who are 16, 17, 18, 19. They are putting dark ideas in their head.”

“I don’t know if he is at that point of sending people to Syria or in Iraq, but what I know is that the teachings he gives are extremist and radical.”

Of course, the radical imam claims that there's no radicalization--nope, none at all--going on at his mosque. And, furthermore, there's no way he could have gotten to the girl:

Reached by telephone Tuesday evening, Charkaoui said he did not know and had never met Zibara.

“At the community centre there is a separation between the men and the women. I don’t see the women. I don’t meet them,” he said.

Meanwhile, Charkauoi, who "was detained and later subjected to restrictive conditions under a federal security certificate that was sought in 2003 because of never-proved suspicions that (he)was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent" is in the process of--what else?--"suing the federal government over his ordeal." I bet he ends up winning, too, even if it turns out he's been the driving force behind a slew of ISIS recruits from Montreal.

He's right, of course. There is no way a true believer would listen to a female apostate, a chick who, as Fatah writes, "has referred in the past to their Prophet Mohammed as a 'pervert' and a tyrant."For Fatah, a Muslim who rejects "political" Islam but who still reveres Islam's founder, that makes Hirsi Ali "guilty of invoking...sharia to pass judgment on Prophet Mohamed as a pervert and a tyrant."Actually, it seems as though it's Fatah who wants to have it both ways. He wants to separate mosque and state, but he also want to continue revering Islam's founder despite his questionable actions, ones recounted in glorious and gory detail in Islam's holy writings.

No matter. Fatah rightly points out that Hirsi's book really boils down to an academic exercise, a manifestation of her new life in the West:

As she acknowledges to the reader:

"I am now one of you: a Westerner. I share with you the pleasures of the seminar rooms and the campus cafes. I know we Western intellectuals cannot lead a Muslim Reformation. But we do have an important role to play."

I would suggest that the role she has to play is the same one she has played in the past: raising non-Muslims' awareness re Islam and what Muslims believe.As such, her appeal to what she calls "Mecca" Muslims (Muslims who don't go in for the violent M.O. Mo adopted when he decamped from Mecca to Medina) may be helpful for an infidel's understanding of the faith. However, it is unlikely to gain traction with ordinary Muslims, who do not know the pleasures of the seminar room and campus cafe, and who have no interest in playing the effete Western parlor game of "Mecca" v. "Medina" Muslims (why do so when genuine divisions--Shia v. Sunni--already exist?). These Muslims are about as likely to follow Hirsi Ali's recipe for "reformation" as they are to lend credence to the words and thoughts of...Mr. Tarek Fatah.

“I’m Muslim. What’s It To You”?Ironically enough, an endeavor called the Civic Engagement Project is one of the sponsors of an event based around that rather rude, in-your-face question. Even better (or worse, depending on your perspective,) the event is supposed to tackle the specter of - what else? - "Islamophobia."Since I wasn’t planning to attend the event, I think I'll answer the question to those posing it with another question: I'm Jewish. What's it to you?A follow up question: Does the fact that the founder of your faith is said to have turned some of my ancestors into apes and pigs have an impact on the way you view Jews - and in particular, the Jews who reside in Israel, the Jewish State - in the here and now?To return to the initial question: You're being Muslim is nothing to me. Not unless you are the sort of Muslim who hews to the problematic jihad/sharia/Islamic supremacism aspects of your faith's theology. Because if that is the type of Islam you practice, there's a genuine possibility that you might want to dhimmify or kill me and, indeed, all Jewry.If you are not that type of Muslim - if you don't really go in for the global jihad rigmarole - then your being Muslim is inconsequential, not to mention irrelevant, to me.That said, however, in certain circles, perhaps even in yours, my articulating an awareness of the hate speech embedded in your core holy texts, as well as my abhorrence of the evil that has been unleashed in the world today in the name of Islam, would mark be as an "Islamophobe," someone in the grip of an irrational fear of Islam. For the record, I am no such thing. My fears regarding the genuine threat posed to Western civilization by implacable jihads - including the ones in Iran who are well on their way to acquiring the nuclear weapons which could enable them to complete Hitler's Final Solution/Holocaust Project - are entirely, eminently and unquestionably rational.(Cross-posted at The Megaphone.)

Oh, he's quite the latter-day Voltaire in his willingness to defend her right to speak freely. Where he parts company with her is in how she defines a "moderate" Muslim:

I disapprove of what Geller did in Garland, Texas, though I like much about her larger mission. She aims to galvanize opposition to Islamists who try to pressure us, Americans and other Westerners, to treat Islam with greater delicacy and deference than we accord to Judaism, Christianity, or secularism. Of those three systems for organizing public life, secularism is what Geller expects Muslims to conform to: “I think a moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim.” The implication is that a moderate Jew is a secular Jew, and that a moderate Christian is a secular Christian.This is where my sympathy with Geller’s outlook begins to taper. Exactly what she means by “secular,” I’m not sure, although her apparent enthusiasm for Ayn Rand and her reported support for abortion rights and gay marriage give me an idea of where she’s coming from. With her cartoon contest, Geller asserted the secular value of free speech over the values of Islamic fundamentalism.

Most traditional, devout Jews and Christians can still sign on to that much. In effect, though, the contest was also an insinuation of the message that, where secular values and those of organized religion conflict, the latter must yield. That aspect of her project spells trouble for any adherent of any religion (other than secularism — yes, see below)...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That is not the implication--or the "insinuation"--at all. What Geller means when she says a moderate Muslim is "secular" is that that's a Muslim who does not go in for jihad/sharia/Islamic supremacism, the trifecta of belief that gives rise to Islam-based terrorism. Thus, she is in no way implying--and never has--that "a moderate Jew is a secular Jew, and that a moderate Christian is a secular Christian" for the simple reason that neither Judaism not Christianity include jihad or an equivalent as a core tenet. So there's no need to sweat her call for "secular" Muslims, fellah. It is not--I repeat, not--a plea for "secularism" in general.

An article in the NatPo informs us that the transgender lobby in British Columbia is hard at work, trying to obliterate those old-fangled categories "male" and "female":

After successfully lobbying provincial and federal governments to make it easier to amend sex designations on key identity documents, transgender Canadians are now pushing for another change: to abolish gender references altogether from birth certificates.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to review complaints filed by the Trans Alliance Society and a handful of transgender and intersex individuals, who argue that doctors should stop assigning the sex of a baby based on a quick inspection of the baby’s genitals at birth when there’s a possibility they may identify under a different gender, or no gender, years later.

“Birth certificates (may) give false information about people and characterize them in a way that is actually wrong, that assumes to be right, and causes people … actual harm,” said Morgane Oger, a transgender woman in Vancouver and chair of the society.

“It’s considered true and infallible when it isn’t.”...

Here's my response to that:

The chair of a British Columbia transgender lobby wants to abolish the categories of "male" and "female" on birth certificates due to the "actual harm" such a characterization can cause to those who are transgendered. One can sympathize with those who suffer because, for one reason or another, these two categories don't quite work for them. At the same time, however, it behooves us to reflect on the "actual harm" that will occur to both individuals and society should we do away with "male" and "female," biological designations that accurately describe the gender of 99.9 percent of the populace.

Monday, May 25, 2015

The problem with Obama is not that he’s an avowed enemy of Israel but that he’s the sort of judgmental friend whose positions are often indistinguishable from those of its foes.

I disagree. The problem with Obama is that he's an avowed enemy of Israel, the Israel of the here and now, the one that is situated in Iran's nuclear crosshairs.Make no mistake. Despite the honeyed words of this dissembler, he is Zion's foe.

The other day, Barack Hussein Obama, who is in the process of burnishing his legacy (or so he thinks) by getting set to sign a simply horrible nuke deal with taqiyyah-speaking Shia fanatics who cannot, should not and must not be trusted, had the chutzpah to speak in front of the assembled at a D.C. synagogue. And didn't the foolish Jews lap up his latest feat of prevarication, swooning on cue as he claimed that he and they are on the same page re Iran acquiring weapons of mass destruction.The gobsmacking spectacle has Michael Ledeen scratching his head and asking why--why?!?--are "progressive" Jews still falling for Obama's daft and wicked--yes, wicked--spin?Well, Michael, all I can tell you is that "progressive" Jews worship at the shrine of universalism and the Democratic Party, and therefore they cannot help but recite their favorite prayer: "Barack atta Adonei Eloheinu Melech ha'olam..."Exhibit A: an American relative, Europe-born, a fugitive from that continent's conflagration, an educated man of refined mien, explained his eternal loyalty to the party like this: "If Adolf Hitler was the Democratic candidate for president, I would still vote for him."There is no arguing--and no reasoning--with fanaticism like that.

"When we have let the world into our town, we have the political controversy you have in the Middle East," says Anders Ekelm, vicar of the Church of Sweden in Malmö. "Among those people you will find anti-Semitism. We have to be honest about it."

Sweden has a generous immigration policy – last year the country of 9 million took in 85,000 refugees. According to an OECD study, that is more than twice as many immigrants per capita as any other member country. Canada, in comparison, takes a twentieth as many refugees proportionately.

In Malmö the immigrants are concentrated in one pocket of the city, Rosengaard.

Unemployment in the area runs at 70 per cent, stones are thrown regularly at mail carriers and police, and 150 cars were torched during summer riots in 2013. Protests for and against Muslim immigrants are frequent and tough.

Engineer Peter Fribourg and his wife Marie, a lawyer, are what are now called 'ethnic Swedes.' "It's a tough matter, you have different cultures colliding. We are not succeeding in the way we would like."

Marie agrees, adding that Malmö meant well but was not properly prepared to help the huge influx of immigrants settle. "I was much more liberal and welcoming before … (but) there have been so many in the last few years we do not know how to deal with them. They will not assimilate."

Update: This looks like it could be Malmö but it is actually an Al Quds Day in Toronto. (And, yes, that yellow and green shmatta you see is a Hezbo flag.):

Hillary Clinton may not have authorized a break-in at a political rival's HQ, but her involvement in the Benghazi debacle along with her clear-cut e-mail finagling should at the very least prompt the media that went apesh*t over Watergate to want to dig a little deeper. As we well know, however, unless she changes her name to "Richard Nixon" that's not bloody likely to happen.

Even as late as 1973, Israel was still widely seen as the good guys and the Arabs were the bad. Sympathy was with Israel because they were being picked on and bullied. There was little consideration of the ‘legitimacy’ of Israel; it was taken for granted.

In 1967, the capture and occupation of East Jerusalem, which of course we commemorated on Sunday as Jerusalem Day, and of Judea and Samaria were accepted as a legitimate act of self-defense.

This was not true just for those of us still at school and in the fledgling days of a military career. This was the general view of British people, and of many in the West, obviously with plenty of exceptions.

Back then, in the 60s and 70s, young minds were still being shaped by traditional views of good and evil. The Valiant comic, read by most schoolboys, was all about heroic Tommies beating the treacherous Nazis or the fanatical Japanese. War films on the whole told the same stories, and without the graphic violence of today.

We had The Longest Day, The Guns of Navarone and Zulu. The BBC was neutral, and if anything supported the values of the country that paid for it. On the whole, like other UK news services of the day, it sought to convey events from the Middle East and everywhere else free of a political agenda, left or right.

In general, popular culture still reflected the long accepted beliefs and principles of a Christian society. All of this shaped the views of the majority of people.

We live in a very different world today. In 40 years the general opinion of Israelis and their Arab foes has been reversed.

What has changed? Some say the situation is different. But this is not the case.

Fundamentally the situation remains the same. Israel’s stance is unchanged from 1948. A desire for the survival of the Jewish national homeland, at peace with its neighbours.

All that has changed about this has been that Israel has made repeated costly concessions, including giving up land, for peace. Concessions which have not been reciprocated by the Palestinians, but instead exploited at the grave expense of Israel. Concessions which have not been acknowledged or remembered by the international community, who, like the Palestinians, simply and uncompromisingly demand more and more and more and more.

Nor have the Arabs fundamentally changed. We have of course peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And the growing threats from Iran and from expanding Sunni jihadism may be leading to some temporary and below the radar mutual cooperation from parts of the Arab world.

But the underlying perspective and agenda, especially among the Palestinians, is the same as it was in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Rejection of Jewish communities in the land of Israel. The destruction of the Jewish State.

Some of the basic dynamics have altered. Before, organized, uniformed and relatively disciplined and conventional Arab armies fought under their national flag. Today the armies have been replaced by terrorist gangsters and black-cloaked jihadists.

Conventional war has been replaced by terrorist attacks. Battles fought between tanks and infantry in remote deserts have been replaced by battles fought in densely populated civilian areas and behind the protection of human shields.

In my view if such events as the Gaza conflict last summer were played out in the 1960s and 70s, the support for Israel in the West would have been greater than it was even then. The savage and murderous actions of the Palestinians are far more shocking today.

So I again ask the question, what has changed? And the answer is: The morality and values of the West. They have been transformed almost beyond recognition...

Indeed. And, without meaning to, Anthony Furey, the subject of my previous post, embodies the transformation. Which is to say that, while he identifies as a libertarian/conservative, he does not "get" any of that religious stuff--the Judeo-Christian stuff--which underpins Western civilization and which is the bedrock of our morality and values. The Ten Commandments? The Golden Rule? The Sermon on the Mount? As non-believers like Furey know, all those stodgy rules are just so old, so passé . In these hip, modern times, we eschew--and laugh at--all those silly strictures about no-bacon-on-your-burger in favour of moral relativism, "victims" as exemplars of virtuousness and anything goes (save for the secular "sins"--"racism," "sexism," "transphobia," etc.) In that sort of world--the one we're stuck with, alas--Israel, in having to constantly defend itself militarily, will always be seen as the bad guy.

I'm puzzled that a number of otherwise rational people I know won't get bacon on their burgers because they believe some chap went into the desert centuries ago without any witnesses and supposedly received the true word of God from an angel.

I can assure you, Anthony, that there's a bit more to it than that.I don't really care what Furey does or does not believe. Were I him, however, I would not be so quick to flaunt my ignorance.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Spoiler alert: As we now know, in the made-up world of Mad Men, PTSD-suffering alcoholic Don Draper ended up creating that Coke commercial, the one showing a panoply of diversity brought together by a common love for darkened sugar-water. The show's finale got me to thinking: that ad was actually a harbinger of sorts for the message of hope 'n' change that, decades later, another slick huckster would get Americans to swallow. What a perfect reason, thought I, to revise the lyrics to reflect the blissed out vision of this later mad man:Obama and his chorus of sycophants sing:I'd like to trash the one percentFor our "equality."Grow calumny,Dependency,See me as heaven sent.I'd like to teach the ZionistsThey can't defeat their foe.I'd like to let Iran get nukes,But claim it's not a go.That's the right thing.Secure my "legacy".So important to me.That's the right thing...

“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

In other words all that stands in the way of Iran obliterating Israel with a nuke is Obama's egregious narcissism?You'll forgive me if I don't happen to find that particularly comforting.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

The purported bittersweetness is not a function of Muslims' embarrassment over Omar and his jihadi mishpachah. No, the oxymoronic feeling has more to do, apparently, with their anger over our prime minister's inbred "racism":

The release of Mr. Khadr is bittersweet for Canadian Muslims. Many were touched by the young man’s modesty and warmth. His words were genuine – much like his smile. He seemed truly grateful for the freedom so long denied, for the support of so many, for the chance to start his life anew. He expressed remorse for the pain he caused. No hint of bitterness. Only the desire to complete his education, with hopes of entering health care – a field, he noted, rooted in compassion for those in pain. We should all be cautiously optimistic for Mr. Khadr’s reintegration into society.

However, Canadian Muslims have seen this scenario before in the post 9/11 era: A Muslim swept up in the “war on terror,” denied basic rights, tortured and left to rot in legal limbo to be saved only by the noble efforts of human rights activists, ordinary Canadians and our justice system. Canadian citizens Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abousfian Abdelrazik were all detained abroad with the aid of our security agencies. Mr. Abdelrazik’s case was particularly vexing. The Harper government repeatedly blocked his return from Sudan (citing him as a “threat”), even after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP cleared his name. A federal judge finally ordered Mr. Abdelrazik’s return. Meanwhile, Canadian Muslims saw the Harper government’s deferential treatment of convicted felons Brenda Martin and Conrad Black. Or, as Mr. Abdelrazik said: “The Canadian government has a racist mind. It is because I am black and Muslim.”

Yeah, our government's "racist mind." That must be what's behind this litany of "victimization." But why is Omar's release in the context of that "bittersweet"?Could it be that Sheema doesn't quite get the word's meaning?

So it was we, Canadians, who wanted him locked up in Guantanamo, and we, Canadians, who kept ourselves ignorant when the facts became uncomfortable. He was a brown-skinned child who helped Al Qaeda, therefore he was subhuman and not a real Canadian.

Khadr is about as "brown-skinned" as I am. Which is to say, his epidermis, sans suntan, is not the least bit brown.Odd how these lefties are so fixated on his skin-colour and not on his actions, no?

One year after openly embracing a jihadist movement in writing, Hamdani was named to a Canadian national security roundtable, where he continued to serve until being suspended April 29 pending an investigation. A spokesperson for Canada's Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said that although questions about Hussein's "radical ideology have circulated for some time, it was hoped that he could be a positive influence to promote Canadian values in the Muslim community. It is now becoming clear this may not have been the case."

As the "spring" was unfolding, and certain Western media types who could not contain their gush were Tahrir Square dancing, Osama in his Pakistan redoubt opined: "These are gigantic events that will eventually engulf most of the Muslim world, will free the Muslim land from American hegemony."Give that man a posthumous Pulitzer Prize! He was right and Thomas L. Friedman (whose snoozerific books, as far as we know, did not make it into bin Laden's Chomsky-heavy library) was wrong.

To translate from the Khomeinist: "global injustice" is the situation that prevails when Iran's power-crazed Twelvers do not yet control the globe. Now that they are pretty much the hegemon of the Middle East, their lust for power has grown exponentially, hence the need to couch it in fluffy "social justice" terminology so as to not set off alarm bells among the infidels.

Update: FYI, one of the speakers, Kevin Barrett, has been called "an anti-Semitic con­spir­acy the­o­rist and fre­quent Press TV con­trib­u­tor." He is also the editor of a "new anti-Semitic and con­spir­a­to­r­ial book, We Are Not Char­lie Hebdo! Free Thinkers Ques­tion the French 9/11." Most of the book's essays assert

that the shoot­ings at the Char­lie Hebdo head­quar­ters and at a kosher mar­ket in Paris were a “false flag oper­a­tion” per­pe­trated by any num­ber of cul­prits includ­ing the Israeli gov­ern­ment, the United States gov­ern­ment, and/or the French government.

No doubt he and voluble local Khomeinist Zafar B. will have much to chat about.

(Here's my latest for The Megaphone.)Why is it that some young people are susceptible to the siren call of jihad while others are not? That's a question that's engaging a slew of experts, two of whom share their "insights" with us in an Op-Ed piece in the National Post. Michael Ungar and Amaranth Amarasingam claim that the way to go is by studying and implementing "resilience."What the heck is that?Well, apparently, "resilience" is the au courant buzzword certain "experts" use when they want to explore the roots of radicalization without having to delve too deeply - or, indeed, at all - in all that messy jihad/Islamic supremacism stuff. In so doing, they can set up the problem in such a way as to absolve Islamic theology and those who purvey it, and proffer a specific "cure" - inculcating "resilience" in young people - that is bound to keep these "experts" employed and in great demand for the foreseeable future.Thus, we have Ungar, "founder and co-director of the Resilience Research Centre" and Amarsingam, a "post-doctoral fellow in the Resilience Research Centre at Dalhousie University" explaining that "radicalization" does not only occur in Muslim communities even though "it is Muslim communities that endure the most pressure and blame."Poor Muslims! Good thing they have Ungar and Amarsingam to ease their burden and salve their pain. Oh, not by studying the whys and hows of the recruitment of holy warriors. That would be far too specific, and would only exacerbate the "pressure and blame." No, the way ahead, according to these two authorities, is to ignore "the handful of youth who have become radicalized" and focus instead on "the resilience of youth who choose a peaceful path."And lest you think that that's sort of like researching, say, schizophrenia by focusing on the majority who don't have the disease, these "resilience" experts are here to set you straight. You see, if only we can figure out why most (generic) youth do not choose (generic) "political violence," we will be that much further ahead in preventing those who are susceptible to (generic) "political violence" from embracing it. "We need to study how they find non-violent ways to have a political voice and fight for what they believe in," they write.No we don't. We need to understand the jihad and why some young Muslims continue to find it so gosh-darned attractive. Until and unless we do that - until we man up and acknowledge the role Islamic holy writ plays in this "political violence" - our efforts to counter this type of "political violence" (pace the "resilience" buffs, the only type that really threatens us) will be doomed to fail.As for the newly-minted "resilience" industry, a sector intent on making a living by suggesting feckless remedies to problems it cannot bring itself to correctly identify - if this Op-Ed piece is any indication, the industry may yet prove to be incredibly resilient.

Please Visit

Followers

About Me

Scaramouche is my nom de Web. My real name is Mindy G. Alter, and I like to think of myself as a free speecher with a sense of humour. My bailiwick: fighting on behalf of all the good things that free speech helps safeguard, and doing my utmost to highlight the malevolence and imbicilities of those who oppose freedom, whomever they may be.